Communication came late, with Scrabman sending conflicting messages about when citizens were meant to attack.
"All citizens attack Russian FER now!"
"WAIT TILL THE LAST HOURS TO ATTACK FER if you can."
We then get our first official explanation of why we are at war in the first place. He reveals, "FER has little real value to us except for as a staging point for the next step of our larger plan." We don't even want it. They're just ignorant pawns in Scrabman's strategy. So are we, apparently.
<strong>Like a Bond villain confidently explaining his master plan, sure it is too perfect to possibly fail, he lashes out at his detractors for underestimating him.
"For all of those who doubted me 2 weeks ago ... suck it."</strong>
2 weeks ago, during the Presidential Campaign, many grew frustrated with the secrecy and 'spin' surrounding the Portugal debacle. It eventually became common knowledge that the eUS was planning on attacking Russia as part of a larger strategy. While the White House did all it could to paint people as traitors for leaking this information, Scrabman took it upon himself to lay out the entire plan to a foreign leader of a PEACE nation (who then took it upon HIMself to tell everyone). He and his thugs then hit the articles, taking jabs at individuals and parties alike, smearing critics as 'disloyal' and 'unpatriotic,' occasionally becoming much more personal and offensive.
We did not doubt that Scrabman would insist on moving forward with this plan, even though it was no longer secret. The question then became, if we already know about this through third parties, why not explain it to your people from your perspective? Why can't your own people, the 60% of the population you keep referencing, be at all aware of what you're thinking and what you're asking us to fight for? For a President so quick to complain about 'PEACE propaganda,' he's rather unwilling to supply the obvious demand for information with his own product.
Military wannabes often throw around the fact that their strategies are on a 'need to know basis,' and we don't need to know. Scrabman is an elitist, so he shares this mentality, but as a power-junkie politician, it manifests itself as unbelievably self-righteous.
"This is where I say we are attacking because I'm your President and I'm asking you to attack. The next steps are outlined above in as much detail as I want to give at this time. I don't owe any explanation."
He seemed pretty fucking sure of himself. Not only that we would win, but that he was a leader that we all want to follow. What, exactly, gives him that impression? Sure, he won 60% of the vote, but there have been many new members since then as well as supporters publicly announcing that they are now former-supporters. I would still assume that his approval is more than half, but does being generally liked by around half of the active population mean you are a good leader in war time? Hindsight being what it is, I think it's safe to say it does not. Afterall, his conflicting messages of which orders to follow may have played a part in the loss. The site was more or less down for the last few hours of the war, so those waiting for further orders missed their chance to fight.
Shortly after his public command for doubters to suck it (before the official loss), an impeachment proposal made its way to vote. This was put forward but consistent supporter, Tarik ibn Ziad, who single-handedly attempted to start the rumor that only USWP candidates we 'vetted' and 'safe for America.' This known puppet putting up an impeachment proposal was incredibly suspicious. I posted an article that raised the question which was met with the usual flaming.
In my article, I quickly made the leap to Scrabman benefiting from this impeachment proposal. When impeachment fails, it cannot be raised for another week. Since Presidential terms are so short, the first lulzimpeachment made Scrabman more or less untouchable for a quarter of his term. Now with the second proposal, that's half. I made the jump so quickly because it suddenly made sense of Scrabman's earlier attitude toward the public. 'Do it because I say so and fuck you if you don't like it' is now good enough because even if he's wrong, it's not like anyone could really do anything about it. I took the article down, having written it on a whim and quickly realizing I didn't have enough information. I hit the eUS forums to see if this was being discussed. It was.
The thread begins with Tarik ibn Ziad explaining that his impeachment is not for lulz, but is actually based on genuine concerns like divisive policies, abuses of power, failures in leadership and jeopardizing the safety of the United States through poor military strategizing and execution. These are serious accusations and are reasonable justifications for impeachment if they can all be proven and a clear case can be made. Tarik doesn't really make this case and by neglecting to bring it to discussion before posting the vote, insured it wouldn't be taken seriously. The thread quickly devolves into some vicious personal attacks and demands for the names of the people who voted FOR it.
The next day, all is well. It's like Tarik never seriously proposed impeachment. All anyone can talk about is ClammyJim's joke pm that voting FOR the impeachment is part of the war strategy. That is over the line, apparently... but so is IMPEACHMENT, yes?
Here are some sour grapes, but it illustrates my point. While an outspoken Federalist is sometimes shamed and harassed to the point they cannot post without illiciting slander, a USWP member who proposed impeachment during wartime based on serious accusations is temporarily marginalized, but quickly forgiven and welcomed back into the circle with open arms. I am somewhat convinced that the subscribers to MY paper are mostly Scrabman Minions, since they're often the first to jump in with some backhanded compliment or cheap shot, flooding my comments with so much bullshit that I remove the article.
This ongoing harassment is a result of things that I said around 2-3 weeks ago.
While the reaction to the impeachment proposal was harsh at first, bordering on illegal, there are no hard feelings between Scrabman, the USWP and Tarik. Tarik has essentially changed his mind about the whole thing. While he was angry enough at the President and concerned enough about America's future to propose the forced removal of Scrabman from office, he's now decided that Scrab is a swell guy and a heckuva President. He even said he relied on the input of other Congressmen before casting a vote for his own proposal, implying they had changed his mind.
From looking at the thread, it wasn't reasoned argument that convinced him he was wrong. It could only have been fear of retribution. That is, unless he is actually being quietly rewarded for his hard work. I can't help but wonder if my knee jerk supposition was indeed accurate. That this serious-looking impeachment attempt was actually a planned safety net for a President who appeared to be losing a big war. Clearly if we just had 2 lulzimpeachments go up to vote, a real impeachment attempt cannot be THAT far-fetched. Especially after losing The Scrabman War. Ok, I know Scrabman didn't come up with the whole plan and a lot of it was around before he was in office, but I defy anyone to identify a more belligerent and cocksure supporter of what eventually failed.
So what am I getting at here? Foul play? Well, people who supported impeachment were threatened with losing their congressional seats and becoming targets of character assassination. Demands were made to release secret voting records for the specific purpose of throwing people out of elected positions for political reasons. The audacity it takes to publicly announce your desire to defraud the citizens of a country you've been selected to represent requires a sense of absolute power and control that a REAL multi-party system could never allow.
But Tarik got away scott-free, even snagging endorsements from his fellow USWP Congressmen for another term serving in Ohio. The unbelievable arrogance coming from Scrabman and his inner circle is only amplified as they make pathetic, superficial attempts to appear like they care about other parties or opposing ideas. Interparty Relations?? Anyway, Scrabman appears to be contemplating a third term, and while he won't admit that he messed up or is going to leave America any worse than he found it, he does think it would be too difficult for a new person to step in at such a sensitive time. You know, the same way the war was in no way his plan and he had nothing to do with it, but he's your President so follow his orders, and if you doubt him you can suck it. That kind of thing. So now, in an attempt to connect to a citizenry he literally could not have cared less about even a few days ago, he's releasing a series of self-conducted 'get to know your leader' interviews. That's right, he went from 'shut the fuck up and follow orders' to 'ask me anything.'
Brace yourself, America. There could be another month and a half of this. Possibly more. There's no such thing as 'term limits' in eUSA.
What is this?You are reading an article written by a citizen of eRepublik, an immersive multiplayer strategy game based on real life countries. Create your own character and help your country achieve its glory while establishing yourself as a war hero, renowned publisher or finance guru.